ANNEX A

 

WRAIR REPORT OF SOLDIER HEALTH AND WELL-BEING ASSESSMENT 

Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) 

Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) 

 

 

16 December 2003 

Chartered by: 

U.S. Army Surgeon General 

This is an annex to the OIF MHAT Report addressing the health and well-being of 

Soldiers deployed to OIF, including Kuwait and Iraq. The findings were obtained 

via the Soldier Health and Well-being Survey and focus group interviews

conducted with junior enlisted Soldiers and NCOs at the company level. 

This report is redacted to remove unit identifications, unit locations, and personal 

identity information in accordance with Army Regulation 25-55, Department of the Army

Freedom of Information Act Program, and Army Regulation 340-21, The Army Privacy 

Program. Redacted information appears throughout this report blacked out, such as 

below. 

A-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ANNEX A: WRAIR REPORT OF SOLDIER HEALTH AND WELL-BEING 

ASSESSMENT.............................................................................................................A-1

Introduction .............................................................................................................A-3

Findings ..................................................................................................................A-3

Recommendations ..................................................................................................A-5

Research Needs .....................................................................................................A-6

Presentation Of Data That Supports The Findings .................................................A-8

Discussion ............................................................................................................A-18

APPENDIX 1: PEER-MENTORING PROGRAM..................................................A-21

APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF SOLDIER HEALTH AND WELL-BEING 

SURVEY...............................................................................................................A-23

APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY OF FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS AND 

PROCEDURES.....................................................................................................A-26

APPENDIX 4: REFERENCES .............................................................................A-35

A-2
ANNEX A to OIF MHAT REPORT

INTRODUCTION

The objective of the OIF Soldier Study is to assess the health and well-being of OIF 

Soldiers deployed to Kuwait and Iraq. To accomplish this goal, a standardized survey 

instrument was administered to approximately 750 Soldiers stationed at various base 

camps throughout Kuwait and Iraq. In addition, the survey was supplemented by 

conducting focus group interviews with junior enlisted Soldiers and NCOs. Findings and 

recommendations are presented first, followed by figures, summary of methods and 

procedures of survey administration, and summary of focus groups. Preliminary 

findings from this study were provided to the CJTF-7 and CFLCC leadership. 

FINDINGS

1. OIF Soldiers report experiencing multiple operational stressors. 

OIF Soldiers reported experiencing multiple combat and operational stressors. The 

most often reported combat stressors included seeing dead bodies or human remains, 

being attacked or ambushed, and knowing someone who was seriously injured or killed. 

The most frequently reported deployment stressors included uncertain re-deployment 

date, long deployment length, separation and communication with family, and lack of 

personal privacy. These operational stressors were significantly correlated with low 

morale, low cohesion, and mental health problems. 

2. Significant prevalence of mental health concerns/ unmet mental health care 

needs exist. 

This assessment shows that a significant proportion of Soldiers deployed to OIF are 

experiencing mental health concerns, and that there is an important unmet need for 

mental health / counseling services.

Distress levels and interest in receiving help. 

Seventy-seven (77%) percent of OIF Soldiers reported currently experiencing no, or a 

mild, stress, emotional or family problem. Sixteen (16%) of OIF Soldiers reported 

currently experiencing a moderate and 7% reported currently experiencing a severe 

stress, emotional, or family problem. Overall, 15% of Soldiers reported interest in 

receiving help. 

Mental health status 

Seventeen (17%) percent of Soldiers screened positive for traumatic stress, depression 

or anxiety and reported impairment in social or occupational functioning. This compares 

with a rate of approximately 11% for Soldiers from XVIII ABN Corps who just returned 

A-3
from Afghanistan (OEF). Most of this difference was attributable to OIF Soldiers 

screening significantly higher on the traumatic stress scale (15% OIF vs. 7% post-OEF). 

Overall, junior-ranking Soldiers reported higher rates of mental health problems than 

senior-ranking Soldiers. Active component Soldiers had higher rates of mental health 

problems than reserve component Soldiers. This latter finding is consistent with the 

higher suicide rate of OIF active duty Soldiers compared to reserve component 

Soldiers. 

Use of Behavioral Health Services 

Of the Soldiers who screened positive for depression, anxiety, or traumatic stress, only 

27% reported receiving any help at any time during the deployment from a mental 

health professional, general medical doctor, chaplain. Of the Soldiers who reported 

interest in receiving help, only 32% received some form of help. 

3. Soldier morale and unit cohesion was low. 

In comparison to other units studied in garrison or peacekeeping operations, OIF 

Soldiers reported low or very low personal and unit morale. Fifty-two percent (52%) of 

Soldiers reported low or very low personal morale and 72% reported low or very low unit 

morale. Unit cohesion was also lower than comparison units either preparing to deploy 

to OIF or who just recently returned from OEF. 

4. Barriers/obstacles impede Soldiers from obtaining mental health assistance. 

Soldiers most in need of mental health care were twice as likely as other Soldiers to 

report concerns about accessing services. Among Soldiers who screened positive for 

depression, anxiety, ortraumatic stress, 26% reported that it would be too difficult to get 

to the location of behavioral health services. Other barriers reported among those who 

screened positive included difficulty getting time off from work to get help (43%), not 

knowing where to go for help (24%), or mental health services not being available 

(24%). Perceived stigma to care was also an important concern for OIF soldiers; 

Soldiers reported that they may be seen as weak (59%), that they would be treated 

differently by unit leadership (58%), that the unit would have less confidence in them 

(49%), or that their leaders would blame them for the problem (46%). 

5. Perceived inequities in personnel and deployment policies adversely affected 

morale and cohesion. 

Focus group interviews with junior enlisted Soldiers and NCOs indicated that there are 

many disparities in housing, access to email and phones, and MWR facilities between 

base camps and different units. Also there were concerns from Soldiers that changes in 

unit leadership during the deployment were adversely affecting morale and cohesion. 

For the reserve component Soldiers in OIF, the twelve months “boots on ground” policy 

was seen as unfair. 

A-4
6. Marital / family separation was a concern for OIF Soldiers. 

Being separated from family was reported as a major stressor by Soldiers (57% 

reported high/very high trouble or concern). Despite being separated from their 

spouses and high operational stressors, OIF Soldiers who were married reported high 

marital satisfaction; 78-80% reported that they had a good and stable marriage. 

However, 11% of married Soldiers reported currently planning to separate or divorce. 

Many focus groups expressed concerns that rear detachment staff and FRG groups 

were not able to adequately support families. In the survey, 55% of married Soldiers 

reported not being satisfied with the rear-detachment support; 54% were not satisfied 

with the Family Readiness Group (FRG) support. Data from the prior surveys and focus 

groups of spouses of Soldiers deployed to OIF and OEF identified similar concerns 

about the ability of rear detachment and FRG groups to adequately support families. 

7. Beneficial effects of training Soldiers in handling stresses of deployment. 

Less than half of respondents reported receiving sufficient training in suicide prevention 

or handling the stresses of deployment. However, a very important finding was that 

Soldiers who reported that they received training in suicide prevention or maintaining 

psychological well-being were significantly more likely to endorse that they felt 

comfortable receiving counseling from a chaplain or mental health professional, to 

endorse that they knew how to obtain mental health care while in theatre, and that they 

had personally assisted another Soldier with a mental health problem. 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Execute an aggressive behavioral health outreach program. 

A high percentage of Soldiers reported interest in receiving mental health support 

and/or screened positive for a mental health problem. However, data suggests that 

significant barriers are preventing Soldiers from receiving help, such as transportation 

constraints, knowing where to get help, mental health services not being perceived as 

available, and stigma. 

Behavioral health care providers can reduce and/or eliminate many of these barriers by 

physically going to the Soldiers who need and/or want help. Since the data indicated 

that both chaplains and mental health professionals were accessed at a similarly low 

rate, both groups need to develop and execute an aggressive forward-deployed 

behavioral health outreach program. Establishing a predictable, regular, and visible 

presence at the company/battalion level is essential. 

2. Review existing Soldier deployment policies pertaining to quality of life 

services in theatre, deployment cycle, and officer rotations. 

Soldiers are extremely sensitive to inequities in access to services and support, 

particularly in a deployed environment. For example, Soldiers based at remote or 

austere sites might have limited or no access to services such as email, phones, PX, 

dining facilities compared to Soldiers located or living at more mature base camps. 

When Soldiers from remote locations get the opportunity to visit other locations, they 

A-5
often are not permitted to use facilities operated by other units. Policies need to be 

established to assure that Soldiers based at remote/austere sites have priority access to 

services/facilities when visiting these more mature base camps. 

Officer rotation and deployment length policies need to be carefully reviewed to ensure 

stabilization of leadership positions for the duration of the deployment cycle (pre, mid, 

and post deployment). 

3. Train Soldiers in meeting the demands of deployment/combat related 

stressors. 

The data suggest that training Soldiers in suicide awareness and in dealing with the 

stresses of deployment have many potential benefits. Standardized training materials 

need to be developed that teaches these skills to Soldiers and leaders. 

4. Implement a peer-mentoring program. 

Soldiers reported that they were much more willing to turn to a member of their unit for 

support than a chaplain or mental health professional. This suggests that developing a 

human resource risk management program utilizing mid-grade NCOs within each 

company could facilitate the early identification and intervention of behavioral health 

issues at the company level. Consideration should be given to developing a program to 

train one or two NCOs per company who could serve as the commander’s 

advisor/trainer for issues such as suicide prevention and coping with the stressors of 

deployment and military life. This peer-mentor would also serve as the liaison between 

the unit, chaplain, and mental health and installation support, and would assist in stress 

education and suicide awareness training. Most importantly, this peer mentor will serve 

as an advocate for those Soldiers least likely to seek help for a behavioral health 

problem due to stigma and other barriers (see Appendix 1). 

5. Provide BH services for Soldier and family members at the BN/BDE level to 

enhance services, facilitate access, and improve command/FRG support. 

The majority of Soldiers and family members in distress do not receive needed 

behavioral healthcare. In addition, there were many concerns about the ability of rear 

detachment and FRG groups to adequately support families, a finding also identified in 

surveys conducted among spouses of Soldiers deployed to OIF/ OEF. The data 

suggest the Army needs to establish permanent social work support at the brigade / 

battalion level to provide counseling for families. During deployments, the unit 

assigned social worker / behavioral health professionals should work with the rear 

detachment and FRGs to provide individual and family services.

RESEARCH NEEDS

1. Conduct a follow-up assessment of OIF Soldiers in theatre. 

The findings presented in this report are based on a cross-sectional sample, and 

therefore causal statements about the impact of the combat and deployment stressors 

on the health and well-being of Soldiers cannot be made. A follow-up assessment of 

A-6
OIF Soldiers in Iraq and Kuwait should be considered in order to better establish causal 

relationships between the combat and operational stressors and the health and wellbeing outcomes. This follow-up assessment should be conducted by a small WRAIR 

Soldier Dimension Research Team just prior to Soldiers returning to home station. 

2. Develop and field a behavioral health needs assessment and unit climate tool 

for the operational environment. 

In order to accurately and systemically determine the behavioral health needs of 

deployed Soldiers and insure that those needs are being met, a standardized behavioral 

health needs assessment instrument needs to be developed and fielded. This tool 

should include an assessment of levels of stress, mental health status, unit climate, 

level of training in behavioral health issues, and an assessment of access and 

acceptability of counseling services. The commander, chaplains, and mental health 

professionals would utilize the findings from this behavioral health assessment to target 

specific issues for action, including behavioral health prevention and early intervention. 

3. Identify the scientifically valid key leadership behaviors that facilitate Soldier 

morale, cohesion, and unit performance in a hostile environment. 

Leadership at the local level is critical for maintaining high Soldier moral, unit cohesion 

and unit performance. Identifying and training those specific leader behaviors that have 

been associated with optimal Soldier and unit performance needs to be a top priority for 

future research efforts and leader development. 

4. Determine the effectiveness of Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD). 

Given that a significant number of Soldiers screened positive on the post-traumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD) scale, it is imperative that the U.S. Army determine the most efficacious 

early intervention strategy for attenuating or preventing the onset of PTSD. Presently the 

critical incident stress-debriefing (CISD) model is the most widely used methodology 

applied to groups exposed to traumatic events, although its effectiveness has not been 

demonstrated. The Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) already has a 

scientifically approved research protocol to assess the effectiveness of CISD in 

ameliorating the adverse mental health effects of Soldiers exposed to combat. 

Immediately execute the WRAIR debriefing study to identify the best early intervention 

methodology for use with Soldiers exposed to combat 

A-7
PRESENTATION OF DATA THAT SUPPORTS THE FINDINGS

Survey Methods and Procedures 

The OIF Soldier health and well-being survey was conducted for the MHAT under an 

approved protocol of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (PI: ----------------------- 

-------). The survey is part of a larger effort involving pre- and post- deployment surveys 

of Soldiers from XVIII ABN Corps, USASOC, and Marine Expeditionary Forces. The 

survey was designed as a rapid assessment of the health and well-being of the Soldiers 

deployed in OIF. Details of the survey instrument are included in Appendix 2. 

The MHAT traveled throughout the Kuwait (CFLCC) and Iraq (CJTF-7) operational 

theaters and administered surveys and conducted focus groups between 27 August and 

30 September 2003. 

In CJTF-7, combat line companies from brigade combat teams (BCT) were targeted 

for assessment. An effort was made to include BCTs located in different geographical 

regions within particular zones. In CFLCC, the survey targeted units that were thought 

to have high operational stress including transporters and MPs. In both CJTF-7 and 

CFLCC, combat support hospitals (CSH) were also included. Companies were 

selected by the operational units, and samples of approximately 25 Soldiers were drawn 

at the company level, based on mission availability (see Table 1 for unit and locations). 

Participants were briefed on the purpose of the MHAT’s mission, the anonymity of the 

questionnaire, and the fact that participation was voluntary. The surveys were 

conducted anonymously. Signed informed consent was obtained from all participants 

prior to survey administration per the WRAIR protocol. More than 99% of Soldiers 

briefed agreed to complete the survey. 

Quality Control of Data 

Data from the surveys were entered into Microsoft Access. A complete quality 

assurance check was conducted on random selection of 5% of surveys (n = 41). All 

285 fields from these 41 records were directly compared between the electronic and 

paper surveys (n=11,685 comparisons). 22 errors were found for an error rate of 

0.18%. Errors were randomly distributed throughout the fields. 

Comparison Populations 

Data from two other anonymous data collections conducted under the same WRAIR 

protocol are included in this report for comparison with the OIF data collection. These 

data collections, conducted between January and March 2003, involved 2530 Soldiers 

from XVIII ABN Corps surveyed approximately three months after returning from a six 

month deployment to Afghanistan and 2072 Soldiers surveyed just prior to deployment 

to Iraq (the unit remains in Iraq now). 

A-8
Study Sample 

Participants were 756 U.S. Army Soldiers from different units serving in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom (See Tables 1-3). Most of the participants were male (86%). The rank 

distribution was as follows: junior enlisted Soldiers 58%, NCOs 35%, and officers 7%. 

This distribution was very similar to the rank distribution for the comparison populations. 

Two-thirds (67%) were Caucasian, 17% were African-American, and 9% were Hispanic. 

Participants tended to be young (50% were younger than 25), with an average of six (6) 

years (median 4 years) in the military. 72% were active component and 28% were 

reserve component with an average of 22 months in their current unit. Participants had 

been deployed nearly 6 months (average 176 days) in the past year, and were based in 

Iraq (77%) or Kuwait (23%). Forty-seven percent (47%) of the sample was married, and 

46% had one or more children. 

Table 1: Units Surveyed 

CJTF-7 

1st AD 4th ID 101st AA 3rd ACR ----- Med Bde

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CFLCC -------

 Trans Group ------- MED Bde Separate Units 

 

 

Table 2: Types of Units Surveyed 

Unit Type # of Surveys 

Combat 423

Medical 125

Transportation 72

Engineers 50

Military Police 35 

Civil Affairs 27 

Signal 12

Other/ Not Listed 12 

Total 756

A-9
Table 3: Survey Locations 

Location # of Surveys Location # of Surveys 

------- Iraq 75 -------

 Iraq 41 

-------

 Kuwait 64 ------- Iraq 26 

-------

 Iraq 55 ------- Iraq 25 

-------

 Kuwait 52 ------- Iraq 25 

-------

 Iraq 51 ------- Iraq 24 

-------

 Iraq 50 ------- Iraq 24 

-------

 Iraq 50 ------- Iraq 24 

-------

 Iraq 45 ------- Iraq 20 

-------

 Kuwait 44 ------- Kuwait 14 

-------

 Iraq 42 ------- Kuwait 5 

Total 756

Sample Size 

Based on the size of the U.S. Army reserve and active component populations in OIF, a 

sample size of 750 is more than adequate to detect most conditions that occur at a 

predicted prevalence of 5-10% (for example the prevalence of screening positive for 

depression or PTSD). For example, 202 is the minimum number of completed surveys 

necessary to detect a condition with a prevalence of 5% (range no more than 2-8%) at 

the 95% confidence level. The 750 surveys therefore provides sufficient numbers to 

look at important subgroups within the population, for example active vs. reserve 

component Soldiers, as there were over 200 of each sampled. For female Soldiers, the 

100 completed surveys was sufficient to detect a condition with a prevalence of 7% 

(range no more than 2-12%) at the 95% confidence level. The study focused primarily 

on enlisted and NCO Soldiers by design. 

 

DATA FINDING #1: OIF Soldiers report experiencing multiple operational 

stressors. 

Combat Stressors 

Most OIF Soldiers reported experiencing combat stressors. The most often reported 

combat stressors include seeing destroyed homes and villages (78%), seeing dead 

bodies or human remains (67%), having hostile reactions from civilians (65%), receiving 

small arms fire (63%), being attacked or ambushed (61%), and knowing someone who 

was seriously injured or killed (59%). Less frequent but important combat experiences 

included engaging in a firefight (37%), being directly responsible for death of enemy 

combatant (19%), engaging in hand-to-hand combat (11%), being wounded/ injured 

(10%). Other reported combat/deployment-related experiences included encountering 

grateful civilians (85%) and demonstrating success in training (80%). 

A-10
51% of Soldiers reported that they had been in serious danger of being injured or killed 

on at least several occasions during the deployment. The average number of days 

deployed in a forward in a hostile sector was 100 days. 

There were significant differences in the combat exposures between reserve and active 

component Soldiers. For example 48% of active component Soldiers reported 

engaging in a firefight compared with only 10% of reserve component Soldiers. Sixtyone percent of AC Soldiers reported being in serious danger of being injured or killed 

several times during the deployment vs. only 28% of RC Soldiers. 

Combat stressors were statistically correlated with mental health problems. For 

example, being attacked or ambushed was associated with screening positive for 

depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress,(p<.001). Duration in a hostile area and 

engaging in a firefight was associated with screening positive for depression, anxiety, or 

post-traumatic stress(p<.05, p<.001 respectively). Duration in a hostile sector was 

associated with increased cohesion (p<.05). 

Non-combat deployment stressors 

The most frequently reported non-combat stressors include uncertain re-deployment 

date (87% high/very high trouble or concern), long deployment length (71% high/very 

high trouble or concern), lack of privacy or personal space (55% high/very high trouble 

or concern), boring or repetitive work (54% high/very high trouble or concern). 

Respondents reported being deployed an average of 176 days in the past year. 

Uncertain redeployment date was significantly associated with decreased unit and 

personal morale, cohesion, and screening positive for depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress. Longer deployment length (measured by days deployed in the past 

year) was significantly associated with decreased personal and unit morale, and 

cohesion (p<.05 for all), but not with screening positive for depression, anxiety, or Posttraumatic stress. 

DATA FINDING #2: Significant prevalence of mental health concerns/ unmet 

mental health care needs. 

Distress levels and interest in receiving help 

Sixteen percent of OIF Soldiers reported currently experiencing a moderate stress, 

emotional, alcohol, or family problem (17% of Junior Enlisted, 15% of NCOs, and 10% 

of officers; 18% of AC, 11% of RC). Seven percent of OIF Soldiers reported currently 

experiencing a severe stress, emotional, alcohol, or family problem (8% of Junior 

Enlisted, 6% of NCOs, and no officers; 7% of AC, 6% of RC). Many OIF Soldiers are 

interested in receiving help for a stress, emotional, alcohol, or family problem. Fifteen 

percent of OIF Soldiers are currently interested in receiving help (16% of Junior 

Enlisted, 15% of NCOs, and 10% of officers; 16% of AC, 13% of RC). This compares 

with a rate of 8-10% of Soldiers surveyed in garrison post-OEF or pre-OIF. 

A-11
Mental health status 

Using standardized clinical screening instruments, 17% of OIF Soldiers screened 

positive for post-traumatic stress, depression, or anxiety (Figure 1), and reported 

impairment in occupational or social functioning (19% of Junior Enlisted, 16% of NCOs, 

and 7% of officers; 19% of AC, 13% of RC). Seven percent of Soldiers screened 

positive for depression (8% of Jr. Enlisted, 6% of NCOs, and 2% of officers; 8% of AC, 

5% of RC). Seven percent of Soldiers screened positive for anxiety (9% of Jr. Enlisted, 

6% of NCOs, and 2% of officers; 8% of AC, 6% of RC). Fifteen percent of Soldiers 

screened positive for post-traumatic stress (17% of Jr. Enlisted, 15% of NCOs, and 7% 

of officers; 16% of AC, 12% of RC). 

Comparative data was also available from surveys conducted among XVIII ABN Corps 

Soldiers who were either preparing to deploy to OIF (“Pre-Deployment”) or had just 

returned from Afghanistan (“Post-OEF”). Overall, 9% of the pre-deployment and 11% of 

the post-OEF Soldiers screened positive for depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic 

stress (Figure 1). The difference between the OIF and post-OEF rates of mental health

problems was almost entirely due to the increased prevalence of post-traumatic stress 

in OIF Soldiers. 

Figure 1. Mental Health Status. Percent of OIF Soldiers who screened positive on the depression, 

anxiety, or traumatic stress scales (and who reported a functional impairment) compared to Soldiers from 

the XVIII ABN Corps prior to deployment to OIF (pre-deployment) or post-Operation Enduring Freedom 

(post-OEF).

5.1 6.1 5.6

9.3

6.7 6.9 7.2 7.3 6.9

15.2

11.1

17.1

0

10

20

30

Depression Anxiety PTSD Any mental

health problem

Percent

Pre-Deployment Post-OEF OIF

A-12
Screening positive for depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress was significantly 

associated with lower personal and unit morale, and low cohesion. 

A single screening question for suicidal ideation in the past month (“thoughts that you 

would be better off dead or of hurting yourself in some way”) was endorsed by 17% of 

Soldiers. This compared with a rate of 12% of Soldiers surveyed prior to deployment to 

Iraq (p<.01). It is important to note that this is a broad screening question and cannot 

be used to predict suicide risk without other clinical information (such as the questions 

included on the entire depression screen, information on suicide intent and planning, as 

well as other risk factors). Nevertheless, the increase noted between pre-OIF and OIF 

Soldiers is of concern, especially in the context of several completed suicides during the 

same period. 

Use of mental health services 

Of the Soldiers who screened positive for depression, anxiety, traumatic-traumatic 

stress , only 27% reported receiving help at any time during the deployment from a 

mental health professional, general medical doctor, or chaplain. This is very similar to 

the rate of accessing health care among Soldiers in garrison post OEF or pre-OIF. Of 

the Soldiers who reported interest in receiving help, only 32% reported receiving help 

during the deployment. Soldiers reported turning to other Soldiers for support much 

more often than they accessed care from mental health professionals or chaplains 

(Figure 2). Chaplains were accessed at a similar rate as mental health professionals. 

There were differences in reported mental health care use during the deployment based 

on whether Soldiers met screening criteria for a mental health problem (depression, 

anxiety, traumatic-traumatic stress ). Overall, of Soldiers who endorsed the question 

about thoughts of dying or self-harm, less than one-third (28%) reported receiving help 

from a chaplain, a mental health professional or general medical doctor. 

Figure 2. Mental Health Care Use. Percent of OIF Soldiers who reported at least one time using a 

Soldier in the unit, the chaplain, a mental health professional, a general medical doctor or the medic for a 

mental health problem as a function of whether they screened positive or negative on either the 

depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress scale. 

A-13

3

2

5

10

12

7

9

10

12

37

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent who used service at least one time

Screen positive

Screen negative

Other Soldier in your unit (non-medic)

Chaplain

Mental health professional

General medical doctor

Medic in your unit
deployment to OIF (pre-deployment). 

DATA FINDING #3: Low Soldier morale and unit cohesion. 

In comparison to other units studied in garrison pre- or post-deployment, the morale and 

cohesion of OIF Soldiers were low (Figures 3 and 4). Fifty-two percent of OIF Soldiers 

report low or very low personal morale, and 72% report low or very low unit morale. 

Figure 3. Personal and Unit Morale. Mean personal and unit morale scores of OIF Soldiers compared

to Soldiers from the XVIII ABN Corps in garrison (non-deployed), post-Operation Enduring Freedom 

(post-OEF), and prior to deployment to OIF (pre-deployment). 

3.31

2.96

2.41

3.08

1

2

3

4

5

PreDeploymentPost-OEF NonDeployedOIF

Me

a

n

3.08

2.67

1.95

2.91

1

2

3

4

5

PreDeploymentPost-OEF Non-Deployed OIF

Me

a

n

Unit Morale 

Item: “Rate morale in your unit.”

Personal Morale 

Item: “Rate your personal morale.” 

Figure 4. Unit Cohesion. Mean unit cohesion scores of OIF Soldiers compared to Soldiers from the 

XVIII ABN Corps in garrison (non-deployed), post-Operation Enduring Freedom (post-OEF), and prior to 

3 .4 5 3 .4 3

3 .5 7

2 .9 8

1

2

3

4

5

P reD e p l o y m e n tP o s t - O E F N o n - D e p l o y e d O IF

Mean

Item: “The members of my unit stand up for each 

th ”

A-14
(percent reporting low or very low morale: 57% junior 

nlisted, 49% NCOs, 25% officers; p<.001). 

nit morale and cohesion both were significantly lower for reserve component (RC) 

oldiers compared with active component (AC) Soldiers (low/very low morale 79% RC 

s. 69% AC, p=.034; mean cohesion 2.77 RC vs. 3.06 AC, p<.001). 

ported significantly higher unit and personal morale (p<.005 for both), and cohesion 

higher the

ported personal and unit morale and cohesion.

ir current obligation. This is 10% higher than Soldiers from XVIII ABN Corps 

urveyed just prior to deployment to Iraq. Both personal and unit morale were 

.004,

esion reported by Soldiers, the 

gher their intention to remain in the military (p< .001). 

ntal

likely as other Soldiers to

port concerns about accessing services (Figures 5 and 6). Among Soldiers who 

creened positive for depression, anxiety, traumatic-traumatic stress , 26% reported that 

barriers reported among those who screened positive included difficulty getting time off 

om work (43%), not knowing where to go for help (24%), or mental health services not 

at

Personal morale differed by rank

e

U

S

v

Soldiers who reported better access to communication home (phone, mail, email) also 

re

(p=.019). 

The more positive the perceptions of officer and NCO leadership, the

re

 

Regarding retention, 53% of Soldiers indicated an intention to leave the military at the 

end of the

s

significantly related to Soldiers intentions to remain in the military (p< .001 and p<

respectively). The higher the perception of unit coh

hi

DATA FINDING #4: Barriers/obstacles impede Soldiers from obtaining me

health assistance. 

Soldiers most in need of mental health care were twice as

re

s

it would be too difficult to get to the location of behavioral health services. Other 

fr

being available (24%). Perceived stigma to care among those who screened positive

was also an important concern particularly that they may be seen as weak (59%), th

they would be treated differently by unit leadership (58%), that the unit would have less 

confidence in them (49%), or that their leaders would blame them for the problem

(46%). Perceived stigma was similar for all ranks. 

A-15
Figure 5. Mental Health Care Barriers. Percent of OIF Soldiers who agreed or strongly agreed with 

statements concerning mental health care barriers that would affect their decision to receive mental 

health counseling while deployed as a function of whether they screened positive or negative on either 

the depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress scale.

8

10

11

10

16

19

24

24

26

43

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Agree/Strongly Agree

Screen positive

Screen negative

There would be difficulty getting time off work

It’s too difficult to get to the location

where the mental health specialist is

I don’t know where to get help

Mental health services are not available

It is difficult to get an appointment

Figure 6. Mental Health Care Stigma. Percent of OIF Soldiers who agreed or strongly agreed with 

mental health care stigma statements that would affect their decision to receive mental health counseling 

while deployed as a function of whether they screened positive or negative on either the depression, 

anxiety or post-traumatic stress scale. 

14

27

29

29

46

49

58

59

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Agree/Strongly Agree

Screen positive

Screen negative

I would be seen as weak

My unit leadership might

treat me differently

Members of my unit might

have less confidence in me

My leaders would blame

me for the problem

A-16
DATA FINDING #5: Perceived inequities in personnel and deployment policies 

adversely affected morale and cohesion. 

Focus group interviews with junior enlisted Soldiers and NCOs indicated that Soldiers 

perceive that there are many disparities in housing, access to email and phones, and 

MWR facilities between base camps and different units. Also there were concerns that 

changes in unit leadership during the deployment were adversely affecting morale and 

cohesion. Specifically, enlisted Soldiers reported that the deployment was adversely 

impacting their career progression while officers were allowed to PCS for career 

advancement. For the reserve component Soldiers in OIF, the twelve months “boots on 

ground” policy was seen as unfair because the time in the mobilization phase was not 

included in the 12-month activation period. 

Data from the survey supported the focus group interviews. Relatively few Soldiers 

reported satisfaction with phones, mail or email as an effective means for 

communicating home (Figure 7). There was a large disparity between AC and RC 

Soldiers in satisfaction with communications, with RC Soldiers having much higher 

satisfaction (RC, 75%; AC, 55%)(p<.001) (Figure 7). This may be a function of location, 

as many RC Soldiers are located in Kuwait, which was a more developed theater of 

operation than Iraq. Satisfaction with at least one method of communicating home was 

significantly associated with higher unit and personal morale, higher cohesion, better 

perceptions of NCO and officer leadership, higher retention intentions, and lower rates 

of screening positive for depression, anxiety, or PTSD (p<.02 for all). 

Figure 7. Communication by Component. Percent of OIF Soldiers who agreed or strongly agreed that 

they had adequate email, phones, or email for communication home as a function of component. 

75

46

62

45

55

31

32

32

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Agree/Strongly Agree

Active

Component

Reserve

Component

Email access has been good

Soldiers have adequate access to 

phones for calling home

Mail service has been good

Satisfied with at least one mode of 

communication home

(phone, email, or mail service)

A-17
DATA FINDING #6. Marital / family separation was a concern for OIF Soldiers. 

Soldiers reported being separated from family as a major stressor (57% reported 

high/very high trouble or concern). Despite being separated from their spouses, OIF 

Soldiers who were married reported high marital satisfaction; 78-80% reported that they 

had a good and stable marriage. However, 11% of married Soldiers reported currently 

planning to separate or divorce. 55% of married Soldiers reported not being satisfied 

with the rear-detachment support of their families; 54% were not satisfied with the 

Family Readiness Group (FRG) support. Marital satisfaction did not differ significantly 

by rank (junior enlisted vs. NCO vs. officer/warrant officer), nor did marital satisfaction 

differ by service component (AC vs. RC). 

DATA FINDING #7. Beneficial effects of training Soldiers in handling the 

stressors of deployment. 

Only 29% of Soldiers agreed that they had received adequate training in handling the 

stresses of deployment and/or combat. Forty-five (45%) indicated that training for 

identifying Soldiers at risk for suicide was sufficient. However 60% reported confidence 

in their ability to identify Soldiers at risk for suicide, and 67% reported confidence in their 

ability to identify Soldiers with depression symptoms. Forty-eight (48%) of Soldiers 

indicated that they had received suicide prevention training since arriving in theatre, and 

24% indicated that they had attended training to improve and/or maintain their 

psychological well-being since arriving in theatre. 

A very important finding was that Soldiers who reported that they received training in 

suicide prevention or maintaining psychological well-being were significantly more likely 

to endorse that they felt comfortable receiving counseling from a chaplain or mental 

health professional (p<.001), to endorse that they knew how to obtain mental health 

care while in theatre (p<.001), and that they had personally assisted another Soldier 

with a mental health problem (p<.01). 

DISCUSSION

This survey focused on Soldiers from line companies, both reserve and active 

component, and is most representative of junior enlisted and NCO Soldiers. One 

limitation is that the survey did not utilize a random sampling design of all OIF Soldiers, 

which would have been logistically much more difficult to conduct in the operational 

setting. However, every effort was made to obtain a representative sample at the 

company level from line units throughout the OIF Theater of operations. Thus, these 

findings may not generalize to Soldiers at battalion, brigade, and division levels. 

The most important findings included (a) low overall morale and cohesion and (b) the 

relatively high rates of mental health concerns. These findings need to interpreted in 

the context of the operational tempo and combat stressors experienced by OIF Soldiers, 

A-18
as well as what is known about the prevalence of mental health concerns in the general 

population. 

Lower morale and cohesion were associated with higher rates of mental health 

concerns. However, there were some important distinctions noted between reserve and 

active component Soldiers. While cohesion and morale were higher among active 

component Soldiers than reserve component Soldiers, rates of mental health concerns 

were higher among active component Soldiers. This inverse relationship is likely 

related to the much higher rate of combat experiences and less favorable living 

conditions among active component units located in Iraq compared with reserve 

component units located mostly in Kuwait. 

Regarding mental health concerns, rates of screening positive for depression and 

anxiety were almost identical to rates reported among Soldiers in garrison after 

returning from OEF or prior to deploying to OIF (~7%). These screening rates provide a 

broad estimate of the population that may be at risk for depression or anxiety, and can 

be used for planning purposes regarding allocation of behavioral health resources in 

theater. They are comparable to rates previously reported in civilian and military 

populations (Kessler, 2000; Huge, 2002). 

OIF Soldiers had much higher rates of screening positive on the post-traumatic stress 

scale than Soldiers in garrison (15% vs. 7%). This is related to the high rate of combat 

experiences among OIF Soldiers, particularly among active component Soldiers. 

Multiple studies have confirmed the link between combat and lifetime risk of posttraumatic stress (Pierson, 2001, 2002). It is important to keep in mind that the posttraumatic stress checklist used in this survey is a screening instrument, and it is

impossible to distinguish between acute stress reactions and PTSD with this scale. 

Since combat experiences are ongoing, it is likely that many of the Soldiers are 

experiencing acute stress reactions. Further data collections over time are necessary to 

determine the proportion of Soldiers that may go on to develop more chronic PTSD 

symptoms. 

Sixteen percent (16%) of OIF Soldiers surveyed reported interest in receiving help for a 

stress, emotional or family problem. This compares with a rate of 8-10% among 

Soldiers in the comparative pre-OIF, post-OEF garrison samples. Although Soldiers 

express a strong interest in receiving help, the high rates of perceived stigma and other 

barriers to care likely prevent them from obtaining help. Concerns about stigma and 

barriers to care are greatest among those Soldiers most in need of services (those who 

screening positive for depression, anxiety, traumatic-traumatic stress). Concerns about 

stigma are not specific to the operational environment, as similar rates of concerns have 

been observed in garrison surveys (Hoge, et. al., 2003; Britt, 2000). However, this 

survey documented that the OIF operational environment presents some unique 

physical barriers to receiving care, particularly involving problems with transportation to 

locations where mental health professionals are located. 

A-19
While it may be difficult to moderate the inherent stressors of combat, data from this 

survey identified several things that may improve morale and well-being of OIF Soldiers 

(Thomas, Castro, 2003). This includes reducing the barriers to receiving behavioral 

health support in the forward environment, establishing predictable deployment 

schedules, reducing perceived inequities in quality of life services, and enhancing the 

training of Soldiers to meet the demands and stressors of deployment.

A-20
APPENDIX 1 (Peer-Mentoring Program) to ANNEX A to OIF MHAT REPORT 

SUBJECT: Soldier Peer Mentoring Care & Support (PMCS) Program. 

1. PURPOSE: To review the importance of an early risk management and peer 

support program. 

2. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed PMCS program is the earliest and first line of 

defense for the distressed Soldier. Soldier PMCS is a Commander’s risk management 

program and can best be conceptualized as the behavioral health equivalent of the 

Combat Lifesaver or Combat Medic programs. PMCS provides Commanders and 

leaders with unit-based critical early identification, mitigation and referral of Soldiers with 

family, operational and combat stress issues as part the Commanders Risk 

Management program. 

 

3. BACKGROUND: 

a. Since the Gulf War of 1990-91, the OP/PERSTEMPO for Soldiers has steadily 

increased, while the numbers of Soldiers to fulfill these missions has decreased. As a 

result Soldiers and their families are experiencing increasing levels of stress that 

continue to be manifested in ways that can often be destructive for the Soldier and 

his/her family and the Army community. Recent clustering of suicide/homicides at Ft. 

Bragg, and more recently, the clustering of OIF suicides in July 2003 are tragic 

examples. 

b. Current mitigation and identification support systems such as Chain of Command, 

NCO leadership, Chaplains, Behavioral Health, and family support system do an

excellent job given their inherent limitations, but have not optimally reduced levels of 

incidents. The recent Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) findings from the Soldier 

Health and Well-Being Survey indicate that Soldiers who screened positive for mental 

health problems will talk with other solders about their problem at a rate three times 

greater than they will with chaplains and behavioral health professionals. Additionally, 

Behavioral Health as a self-referral system is often perceived as “career ending” or 

“shameful” (letting down the individual Soldier or the Soldier’s peers). FM 22-100 and 

FM 22-101 address leadership principles of counseling, coaching, and mentoring, but 

do not go far enough to adequately provide the mentoring unit member with the 

necessary skills to be effective in the role of mentor or early risk management assessor. 

c. Our allies have also experienced similar family, operational, and combat concerns. In 

1996, at the direction of the Commandant, the British Royal Marines developed and 

instituted a peer-driven risk management and support system. The program has 

experienced a high degree of success and acceptance among its forces. Enough so, 

that the Royal Navy is now in the process of implementing same. All British military 

forces are projected to adapt and implement by end of 2003. 

A-21
4. CONCEPT OF OPERATION: Capitalize on the proven success of “train the trainer” 

programs and train an initial cadre of Army Behavioral Health Providers (BHP) to train 

other Army BHP and Soldiers already trained in the Army ASIST program. Supplement 

learning activities for trained Soldiers through the use of a self directed interactive CD. 

5. SUMMARY: The Soldier PMCS program is designed as a “Soldier driven”, early 

portal of entry for identification, mediation, and referral for family, operational, and 

combat-related behavioral health & stress issues. PMCS can be fielded rapidly as a self 

paced, self learning module supplemented by training provided by US Army Behavioral 

Health Officers (Train the Trainer). Ideally Commanders can further leverage the PMCS 

Soldier’s training by matching those Soldiers who have already received ASIST training. 

A-22
APPENDIX 2 (Summary of Soldier Health and Well-Being Survey) to ANNEX A to 

OIF MHAT REPORT 

The Soldier survey is a specially adapted version of a questionnaire being used by the 

Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) to assess the ongoing effects of 

OPTEMPO, combat exposure, and mental and physical health variables on Soldiers 

and marines, as well as family members. Data from other samples collected previously 

by the WRAIR are utilized as comparison data in this report. 

The findings from scales and items contained within the survey presented in this report 

include: 

Morale and unit cohesion 

Participants were asked to rate both their personal morale and the morale in their unit 

on a five-point scale from “very low” to “very high.” Unit cohesion was measured as an 

average of participants’ agreement or disagreement to three questions: “The members 

of my unit are cooperative with each other,” “The members of my unit know that they 

can depend on each other,” and “The members of my unit stand up for each other.” 

(Castro, 2000) 

Officer and NCO leadership 

Participants rated a series of four questions on a five-point scale (“Never” to “Always”) 

for both their NCOs and officers in their unit. Questions included: “In your unit, how 

often do NCOs [officers] tell Soldiers when they have done a good job,” “In your unit, 

how often do NCOs [officers] embarrass Soldiers in front of other Soldiers,” “In your 

unit, how often do NCOs [officers] try to look good to higher-ups by assigning extra 

missions or details to Soldiers,” “and “In your unit, how often do NCOs [officers] exhibit 

clear thinking and reasonable action under stress?” The average of these four 

questions formed a composite scale score for NCO leadership and officer leadership 

respectively. (Castro 2000) 

Stigma and barriers to behavioral health care 

Stigma and barriers to receiving mental health care were assessed by asking each 

participant to agree or disagree (on a five-point scale) with a series of 17 questions. 

Physical barrier questions included, “I don’t know where to get help,” “It is difficult to get 

an appointment”, “It’s too difficult to get to the location where the mental health 

specialist is.“ Stigma questions included “I don’t trust mental health professionals,” “My 

leadership would treat me differently,” “My leaders would blame me for the problem,“ 

and “I would be seen as weak.” (Hoge, 2003; Britt 2000) 

Marital satisfaction and family support 

A number of factors were examined about marriages and how families were supported 

at home station. 

A-23
Marital Satisfaction – Measured by the average response to four questions (“I have a 

good marriage,” “My relationship with my spouse is very stable,” “My relationship with 

my spouse makes me happy,” and “I really feel like a part of a team with my spouse.”). 

In addition, participants were asked whether or not they (or their spouses) intended to 

separate or divorce. 

Family Support During Deployment – Participants were asked to rate their satisfaction 

of their unit rear detachment’s support of their families, and their satisfaction with their 

unit family readiness group’s (FRG) support of their families. 

Combat and deployment stressors 

Combat and deployment stressors were examined using two scales. 

Combat Exposure – The frequency of combat exposure to various combat events were 

examined, and participants were asked to rate the number of times they felt they were 

in serious danger of being injured or killed (four-point scale). Example questions 

include, “Being attacked or ambushed,” “Receiving small arms fire,” “Seeing dead 

bodies or human remains,” “Clearing/searching homes or buildings,” “Being responsible 

for the death of an enemy combatant”. 

Deployment Stressors – Participants also rated their concern about various other 

stressors along a five-point scale. Deployment stressors included, “Being separated 

from family,” “Uncertain redeployment date,” “Duration of deployment,” “Lack of 

privacy,” and “Boring and repetitive work.” 

Mental health status 

Participants were asked a number of questions about their current mental health 

functioning in the areas of depression, generalized anxiety, and post-traumatic stress 

(post-traumatic stress ). In order to score positive for one of these three areas, the 

participant had to endorse several items on each scale according to established clinical 

guidelines at “More than half the days” (depression/ anxiety scales), or “Moderate” level 

(traumatic stress scale) AND mark that the problem caused functional impairment. The 

functional impairment question for depression and anxiety was based on a single 

question asking the respondent to rate how difficult the symptoms had made it to do 

his/her work or get along with other people. “Very difficult” or “extremely difficult” was 

scored positive. The functioning question for post-traumatic stress was based on 

questions that asked if the symptoms had affected their work. This established a 

conservative estimate of those at high risk for a possible mental disorder. (Spitzer, 

1999; Blanchard, 1996) 

Retention 

Participants were asked to describe their current career intentions along a six-point 

scale from “definitely stay in until retirement” to “definitely leave upon completion of 

[one’s] current obligation.” 

A-24
Quality of life 

Quality of life was examined through the answers (on a five-point scale) participants 

gave to a number of questions. These questions included “difficulties communicating 

back home (e.g. phone calls, email, mail),” and “lack of privacy or personal space.” 

Training 

Soldiers were asked if they agreed on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly 

agree if training in suicide prevention was adequate, if training for identifying Soldiers at 

risk for suicide was sufficient, and if training in handling the stresses of deployment was 

adequate. Soldiers were also asked their confidence in their ability to identify Soldiers 

with depressive symptoms, at risk for suicide, and whether they had attended training in 

suicide prevention or stress education. 

A-25
APPENDIX 3 (Summary of Focus Group Interviews and Procedures) to ANNEX A 

to OIF MHAT REPORT 

INTRODUCTION

Thirty-four small group interviews with junior enlisted (N = 17 groups) and NCOs (N = 

17 groups) from CFLIC (Kuwait) and CJTF7 (Iraq) were conducted to obtain Soldiers’ 

perspectives on the operational/combat stressors they encountered, their quality of life, 

leadership, deployment length, morale, access to health care, and family support. 

APPROACH

Focus Groups 

All interviews were conducted by at least two MHAT team members. Thirty-four groups 

were conducted at sixteen different locations throughout the Kuwait and Iraq area of 

operations with the following group composition: combat, combat support, combat 

service support, and medical. 

Themes/Questions 

Prior to all interviews, key themes and specific questions that every MHAT interview 

team would attempt to address were determined. All groups were asked the same 

questions. Below are the specific themes and questions for all focus groups. 

Themes: Length of deployment, key events experienced by unit/individual. Mission 

evaluation, morale of individual/unit, access to health care, access to command, 

leadership, family well-being, and quality of life. Interview questions included: (1) how 

long have you been deployed (i.e., in country)? How long do you think Soldiers should 

be deployed to Iraq? (2) What missions or operations have you conducted since arriving 

in country? Do you think that you have been successful? What was the impact on the 

unit? (3) What has been the most positive aspect of this deployment? What has worked 

well? The most negative? What has been the most stressful aspect of the deployment? 

(4) How would you rate the morale in your company? High, medium, low? (5) How 

would you evaluate the health and well-being of the company? Physical health? Mental 

health? (6) How has leadership been? NCOs? Officers? (7) What about leadership at 

the battalion level and above? How has it been? (8) How is your family doing during the 

deployment? Is the Family Readiness Group and rear detachment doing a good job? (9) 

Have you been able to take R & R? How do Soldiers unwind while deployed? How often 

do Soldiers in your unit “get a break?” 

Procedures 

All interviews began with members of the MHAT interview team introducing themselves 

and describing the purpose and objective of the interview. Confidentiality and anonymity 

A-26
were guaranteed in order to encourage candid and honest discussion. Thus, no names 

of any of the group members were recorded. All interviews lasted approximately 60 

minutes. 

RESULTS

Junior Enlisted Soldiers from Combat Units Stationed in Iraq 

The junior enlisted Soldiers from Combat Arms units consisted of 62 Soldiers 

representing a wide and varied range of combat MOS’s. Fourteen separate combat 

arms companies were surveyed throughout the CJTF-7 AO. Twenty-two Soldiers were 

married and forty Soldiers were single. Length of deployment for all Soldiers ranged 

from five months to eight months. All but three of the 62 Soldiers felt that six months 

was the longest a deployment should last, though roughly half of the Soldiers agreed 

they could do a year tour if the de-mobilization/redeployment date was firm and known 

in advance. “Give me a count down, not a count up.” “Six months should be the limit. 

After that time, you start thinking more of home than on the mission.” Key events for the 

groups centered primarily on combat experiences. Other key events included a friendly 

fire incident, change of command, changing de-mobilization dates, and the uncertainty 

of returning home. All group members moved several times within the theater of 

operations. All groups reported doing patrol missions and other details. Most group 

members felt they have been successful in accomplishing the tasks given to them. 

Some groups expressed concern that their raids had become less productive, netting 

fewer bad guys and weapons as time went on. The groups varied on their reports of 

positive and negative aspects of the deployment. Four of the groups commented on the 

positive aspects of “combat pay and tax breaks”. Several members of the groups felt 

positive about the reception they received from Iraqi citizens shortly after Saddam was 

removed from power. Some group members felt the cohesion formed in the unit was 

positive. Many group members listed separation from family and unknown rotation dates 

as negative aspects of the deployment. Nearly half of the groups reported “improvised 

explosive devices” (IED) as a negative aspect of the deployment. Other group 

comments on negative aspects included a friendly fire incident and the assignment of 

mundane “make work” tasks. Morale was listed as low by nearly three fourths of the 

groups. None of the groups rated morale higher than “medium” or a “4-6” on a 10 point 

scale. Some key factors identified for low morale were, “You see other units in charge of 

us and they are living better than we are.” “It’s not equitable in theater.” Some groups 

cited the rotation of some Soldiers due to ETS as “morale busters” for the unit. “If we’re 

losing manpower and this mission is so important, then why are they leaving (ETS 

Soldiers)?” All groups reported generally good physical health. Several groups reported 

some mental health issues, i.e.; increased agitation, depression, or family problems. 

Groups were evenly divided on quality of NCO and officer leadership. Some groups 

reported their leaders as poor, only interested in furthering their own careers, and, some 

groups reporting their leaders as doing good and looking out for Soldiers. Nearly 75% of 

the groups reported that their Battalion level command leadership as poor. The primary 

complaint was “a lack of concern for us” and the initiation of “garrison style” policies and 

duties. All the groups reported that access to physical health care was generally good 

A-27
with some problems related to distance and time required for travel. One group cited a 

problem that once they got to sick call they were told they needed to come back for an 

appointment time. Over half of the groups reported no awareness or contact with 

mental health services. Other group members indicated their commands would not be 

supportive of using mental health, “We can’t go to anyone because our command won’t

let us have time off and they’re too macho. My platoon sergeant would call me 

a(expletive)!” Over half of the groups reported the Family Readiness Groups as “broke 

or doing poorly”. One group stated their FRG was doing a good job but had gotten “a lot 

of bad information” relative to the unit’s re-deployment and other events. “They planned 

a homecoming bash for us...we didn’t show up.” All groups reported living conditions 

were acceptable, primarily because of the improvement over what they previously were 

living in. Time off and R & R experiences varied for each group. Many group members 

felt they would not be able to benefit from the R & R program because of manpower 

constraints and because the selection criteria to go on R & R rewarded those who reenlisted at the expense of the rest of the Soldiers. Several Soldiers who went on R & R 

were not complimentary of the experience, “It sucked!” “Too many regulations. Nobody 

wants to go now.” One group member reported that Soldiers were being charged for 

bottled drinking water at his R & R location. Ability to communicate back home with 

family members varied from group to group. Some groups were limited to a few short 

minutes of email or phone calls every few weeks, while other groups had opportunities 

for both on a weekly basis. Additional comments for some groups centered on the 

stressful nature of IEDs and the risks involved in the mission. 

Junior Enlisted Soldiers from Combat Service and Combat Service Support Units 

Stationed in Iraq 

The junior enlisted Soldiers from Combat Support/Combat Service Support 

organizations consisted of 28 Soldiers ranging in rank from Private First Class to 

Specialist. The group consisted of 14 males and 14 females. Ten Soldiers were 

married and eighteen were single. There were four separate focus groups conducted at 

separate geographical locations. All Soldiers had been in theater for 6-7 months. All of 

the group members felt the length of deployment should be six months but could be 

longer if there was a mid-term break. Key events included a riot in the enemy prisoner 

of war (EPW) prison and handling human remains. All Soldiers felt their role in the 

mission was successful. Positive aspects included the early appreciation of Iraqi citizens 

and the self-confidence that they gained as individual Soldiers. Negative aspects 

included changes in mission role and rules of engagement. All but one Soldier listed 

their morale as low or very low (1 on a scale of 1-10). All group members identified their 

mental health as low and on the decline. Soldiers were fairly evenly divided in their 

assessment of the quality of leadership for their NCOs and company grade officers, 

ranging from poor to good. Those responding with poor listed their leadership as 

unapproachable and instituting “garrison type duties” in a combat environment. 

Battalion level leadership was described as “non supportive” and “never seen”. Access 

to medical care was rated as adequate, however, access to mental health care was 

rated as either “not available” or “uncertain” by several groups. One group indicated 

seeing mental health professionals would adversely impact their career. Members of 

A-28
one group indicated the FRG was difficult to relate to and that “they didn’t trust them.” 

Quality of life issues (i.e., living quarters, time off, etc) were okay or adequate for one 

group while the other group was currently living in tents without air conditioning and 

limited time to relax. Some reported that when they were given time off, if they laid in 

their bunks, ”someone would come along and give us duty because we weren’t doing 

anything”. Some group members stated concerns about the R & R trips being given “to 

warriors not supporters.” All groups had email and phones available on a limited basis. 

Additional comments made by the groups included: a need to clarify current mission, 

truthful communication from command, a firm return date, and commanders and senior 

NCOs acting more responsively to Soldiers needs and concerns. “They may not be 

able to solve our problem, but they could at least listen and tell us up front the truth like 

adults.” 

 

NCOs from Combat Units Stationed in Iraq 

Eight separate all-male groups consisting of 49 NCOs ranging in rank from E5 to E9 

were held at various base camps throughout the Iraq AO. Thirty-two Soldiers were 

married; two divorced, and 14 were single. Length of group time deployed varied 

between 6-7 months for all groups. The groups were evenly divided on suggested 

length of time. Half felt 6 months was plenty. The other half felt a year was acceptable if 

there was still a mission. Soldiers who endorsed a year stay felt a year or two-year 

break between deployments was also needed. Some Soldiers indicated they had been 

deployed 20 out of 24 months. Some group members also felt Korea should be counted 

as a deployment. Key events for the groups included combat experiences, particularly 

IED exposure on the roads, ‘no warning orders or operations orders’ until 4 months into 

the war, and the allowance of officers to rotate out of theater to continue their career 

advancement. Most members felt they had been successful in their assigned mission 

and felt good about the job they had done. “We have been successful; we are dragging 

them down one by one.” As time goes on however, many NCOs felt they had inherited a 

mission for which they had not been trained or should be doing, “We are not trained to 

be part of the Peace Corps, we are Soldiers.” “We send confusing messages to the 

Soldiers. We came here to kill people. Now that we are not doing that they should send 

us home. Now we are told to smile and be nice to them.... and then we find weapons in 

the floor of their home.” The groups listed unit cohesion, relying on training, and 

relationships developed as positive aspects of the deployment. Groups also listed 

uncertain rotation date and changing statements about rotation as negative aspects. 

“The false return dates are very hard on morale; ...Soldiers are not believing what the 

command has to say about anything.” Group members also listed “Soldiers bitching 

about broke things” and the NCOs not having the resources to fix the complaints of 

Soldiers. All but two groups listed their morale as low, “We are showing high (morale on 

the outside for the sake of our Soldiers), but we are actually low (on the inside)” All of 

the NCOs in the group indicated that many NCOs are ‘putting on’ a high morale act in 

an effort to prevent discouraging their Soldiers. Low morale was attributed to several 

factors: (1) field grade officers and Generals “living like kings” while they (regular troops) 

lived in conditions less agreeable, (2) increased down time leading to more time to think 

about their circumstances, and (3) poor mail services. One group indicated they only 

A-29
started receiving mail three weeks prior to the interviews in September (a period of 

approximately 5 months). All group members stated that the physical health of their 

units was good, a few indicated problems getting dental appointments. Over half of the 

groups indicated their unit was experiencing signs of stress, fatigue, and anger. Soldiers 

either indicated they would not seek mental health help (they would rather use their own 

internal resources) or could not gain access to mental health services. Groups were 

evenly divided on leadership issues: some groups felt they had strong leadership at all 

levels and other groups felt their leadership was “broke”, “Command and control has 

been(expletive).” Of major concern to many group members is the change of officer 

staff during the deployment. The overall opinion is that the changing of officers is 

disruptive and is a significant contributor to the low morale issue. Most groups felt 

access to health care, both physical and mental health, was good. Only one group 

indicated that their unit would “make fun of them” for using mental health. Nearly all 

group members indicated their families were doing poor to fair with the primary 

frustrations centered on the one-year deployment and the changes in rotation dates. 

Many felt that FRGs were not adequately meeting Soldiers family needs. A few 

Soldiers indicated that early in the deployment there was contact with FRG, but as time 

went on, the contact died off. Over half the group members were angry and frustrated 

with their rear detachments. They felt “rear d” Soldiers were living the easy life and 

failing to fulfill the duties they were given to support the main body of Soldiers in Iraq. 

Housing was adequate and continually improving for all group members. Time to relax 

and access to MWR/R & R varied among group members with most feeling it was 

adequate. Group members located near the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) work 

areas were very concerned about the disparity in life style and access to amenities. 

“The NCOs were very upset to see E-2s walking around with cell phones, being able to 

call home anytime they want, while ‘the guys getting shot at don’t have anything. It’s a 

slap in the face.’” All groups had access to email, phones and regular mail on varying 

degrees of regularity. Some groups encountered restricted access to phones from 

higher headquarters units who told Soldiers that the phone use was only for HHQ staff. 

Additional group comments included; “...Soldiers who get legitimate Red Cross 

messages aren’t allowed to go home, but officers who need to go to school can.”. One 

NCO was upset when General --------- retired, “How can you let the Commanding 

General retire when we are at war?” Many group members were concerned with being 

part of the fight and now being asked to help change the hearts and minds of Iraqis. 

“The 82d was part of the invading force, and now they want us to be nice to people we 

were trying to kill. It screws with our heads.” 

NCOS from Combat Support/Combat Service Support Units Stationed in Iraq 

Five separate groups totally twenty-nine Soldiers participated in the focus groups. 

Twenty-five of the Soldiers were male and eighteen Soldiers identified themselves being 

married. Rank ranged from E-5 to E-6. Most group members had been in country for a 

period of six months. All members felt six months was the ideal maximum time for a tour 

like Iraq. Some stated they could go longer (9 months to a year) but only if the return 

dates were firm and known in advance so their families could plan. Group members 

listed key events as “combat injuries” particularly IEDs. Several group members also 

A-30
listed change of command by their leaders, “Its as if they brought us here and left us.” 

However, one group with similar circumstances told of their high regard for their 

commander in spite of his having to leave and go back to CONUS. What separated this 

group of Soldiers from all other groups reporting their commander leaving was the open 

knowledge that the Commander did everything he could to “stay with his Soldiers” but in 

the end was forced to leave by ‘higher ups’. All groups reported their missions as 

successful. Missions varied widely amongst the types of support groups. No group 

reported feeling that they were no longer doing a useless mission, this differs from CA 

NCOs. Most Soldiers reported the change in unit cohesion as a positive thing and the 

confidence in themselves that this deployment generated. On the negative side Soldiers 

were concerned with the inequities between officers and enlisted ( ability to attend 

schools, rotations) and the lack of telephones. “The Army didn’t bring enough phones 

and the Air Force has gotten tired of us using theirs.” Morale for all groups ranged from 

very low to medium. Those indicating low morale attributed long work hours, uncertainty 

of rotation dates and the introduction of “garrison type duties and attitudes” into the 

theater. Physical health among all group members was reported as good though many 

reported feeling fatigued and overworked. (one grouped worked 18-hour days, 7 days a 

week). Mental health generally was considered to be low to medium with many 

reporting to be depressed or stressed. Leadership varied among group members, with 

some indicating NCOs as doing a good job and others indicating they did poorly. 

Officers were likewise rated. Most complaints made were with leadership at the 

battalion and above levels. The major complaints centered on officers being allowed to 

continue advancing their careers while everyone else was on hold. Soldiers from the 

groups reported access to health care as good. Some reported they would not use 

mental health care because of the stigma attached to it. Group members varied on how 

their families were doing and how they felt the FRG was meeting their family’s needs. 

Some indicated their families were doing very poorly and that FRG was “broke” while 

others indicated the problem for FRGs was in getting good information to give to 

families. Quality of life issues varied among groups. Most felt their housing situation was 

continuing to improve and that currently it was not too bad. Time off for many was 

meaningless because there was either a limited amount of things to do or they simply 

did not have time off. R & R and MWR trips varied but most felt they would not be able 

to take advantage of it because of duties and policies. Communication for many was 

marginally adequate. Some complained about the high cost of phones to call home. 

Some stated they had paid as much as $2.00 a minute to call. Additional comments 

again focused on the disparity between officers and enlisted with regards to being 

allowed to continue education and career advancement. Many NCOs expressed 

concern about not being properly trained or equipped for the change in mission roles 

they are now performing. Some NCOs stated “More manpower is needed for these 

types of missions. We are exhausted and have nothing to look forward to but another 

rotation over here. There are no incentives to stay (in the Army) ... They’ll offer 

someone off the street money to come in and all we’ll be offered is another rotation 

away from our families.” 

A-31
NCOs from Medical Units Stationed in Iraq

This group consisted of nine members ranging in rank from E5 to E6. Seven members 

were male and two female. Eight of the members were married. The group had been in 

theater for 6 months and all felt 6 months was the ideal maximum time for this type of 

deployment. Key events are listed as daily mortar attacks and SCUD attacks early in the 

war. They felt their mission of providing patient care in a hostile environment had been 

successful. Uncertainty related to rotation dates was the only negative aspect listed. 

Morale was low for all members; they felt they were beginning to “unravel mentally”. 

Rating of leadership quality for NCO and Officers varied among group members. 

Battalion level leadership was rated as very poor. The FRG initially was “horrible” but is 

getting better. The FRG has been misreporting some information. Quality of life issues 

are good with adequate opportunities for communication with families. Additional 

comments were, “ a lack of people with TOE/ field experience. TDA Soldiers don’t know 

what’s going on.” “Some leadership positions have been given to reservists and they 

don’t understand how things work.” 

Junior Enlisted Soldiers from Combat Support/Combat Service Support Units 

Stationed in Kuwait 

The junior enlisted Soldiers from Combat Support/Combat Service Support 

organizations in Kuwait consisted of 4 Soldiers ranging in rank from private first class to 

specialist. One was married, three were single. There was one female and three males. 

This group has been deployed for nine months at time of interview. Collectively they felt 

6 months, including time spent in MOAB, was sufficient time for a deployment. This 

group listed the initial de-mobilization/redeployment order cancellation and subsequent 

cancellations of de-mobilization/redeployment dates as a key factor. The only positive 

aspect they could identify for the deployment was the level of trust they developed with 

each other. Everything else was listed as a negative experience with particular negative 

focus on leadership. Morale was listed as low to medium. This group reported that NCO 

leadership seemed to “have given up “ on leading. They reported officers as “the worse 

of all leaders” and that the officers would not accompany them on missions into Iraq. 

This group also reported that BN level NCO leadership was allowed to take leave while 

other Soldiers were not. There were no complaints or issues raised with access to 

medical or behavioral health care. The group viewed the Family Readiness Group as 

inactive. Quality of life issues, i.e.; housing/personal space, MWR opportunities, and 

sufficient time to relax were not issues for the group, however, all of the group would 

have preferred more personal living space. The group had adequate means and access

to communication with home. Additional comments by the group were concerns about 

stop loss impacting RC/NG ability to ETS while not impacting AC Soldiers, and, 

concerns that officers were given opportunity to take leave or time off to spend time with 

service member spouses in theater while enlisted Soldiers with similar circumstances 

were not afforded the opportunity to see their spouses. 

A-32
Junior Enlisted Soldiers from Medical Units Stationed in Kuwait 

The junior enlisted for medical organizations in Kuwait consisted of four Soldiers

ranging in rank from private first class to specialist. One was married and three were 

single. There were two females and two males. This group has been deployed for seven 

months, they did not respond to how long the length of deployment should be. The key 

event for this group was change of command. They viewed the change of command as 

positive, “more supportive, more information on what’s going on”. This group did not 

change geographical locations during OIF. Members of this group did not identify 

comments related to their mission. The group listed morale as “always low” in spite of 

their statements that having “hot showers, good food, time to focus on promotions and 

the availability of R & R trips “ was available to them. The group endorsed good physical 

and mental health and reported that access to care was not an issue. The group was 

divided on quality of NCO leadership. Some group members felt NCOs as a whole did a 

good job, while other group members felt NCOs “whined and acted out.” The group had 

similar comments for officer leadership. There was concern over double standards 

between the enlisted and officers. Junior enlisted Soldiers were reprimanded for uniform 

violations while officers uniform violations were not addressed by command. Battalion

level leadership was new and the group felt that the new commander and SGM showed 

genuine interest in quality of life and other important issues. The group gave low marks 

to the Family Support Group, indicating that it was “inactive”. Quality of life issues such 

as housing, food, time off, MWR were not issues. Communication to family and friends 

back home was sufficient but had been better before. The unit was recently forced to 

make cutbacks in the number of phones available for staff to use. 

NCOs from Combat Support/Combat Service Support Units Stationed in Kuwait 

There were five NCOs ranging in rank from SGT to SSG. One was single, four were 

married. All group members were male. The group has been deployed for nine months 

including mobilization. The group felt one year for all phases was an adequate 

deployment length. This group listed two key events: (1) extension of deployment 

beyond one year. (2) Unit tasking to four different battalions. Each of these four different 

battalions was reported by the group to have rotated back to CONUS. The group 

members were based out of Kuwait but traveled extensively into Iraq. The group took 

pride in the accomplishment of their mission. They reported, “feeling honored” to 

transport the 3d ID out of theater. They now felt that they were doing “make work” 

missions. The most positive aspect of OIF for this group was the opportunity to “make 

more money” (through combat pay incentives). The most negative aspect was 

“leadership constantly lying to Soldiers.” While access to health care was good, the 

group reported that Soldiers in their organization were discouraged from seeking health 

care and that those Soldiers receiving profiles were verbally “degraded”, given bad 

details, and the medical profile challenged by leadership. “The unit discounts the 

‘doctors’ orders.” The group commented that NCO leadership “sucks.” “Some NCOs do 

a good job but “many do not give a damn.” One group member stated that his platoon 

leader had made such a negative impact on him that he was planning on leaving the 

Army after 15 years of service. The group commented that the officers would “go with 

the flow and avoid issues”. There was no discussion on battalion leadership or family 

A-33
support groups. Quality of life issues were not a problem. Access to communication was

good. Additional comments were: “The government hanged us (NG and Reserve),” 

“Many reservists will lose their businesses back home,” ‘We’re hauling things now that 

could be handling more efficiently and economically by another means of transport.” 

NCOs from Medical Units Stationed in Kuwait 

There were nine NCOs from two medical units (one active, one reservist) interviewed in 

separate focus groups. Their rank ranged from SGT to SFC. There were four females 

and five males. Five Soldiers were married. All NCOs were either from the 91 series 

MOS or were Soldiers assigned as support to the medical unit. Both focus groups had 

been deployed for six months. The group was evenly divided between six months and 

one year on length of deployment. Key events for the group were listed as either 

change of command or the “rumor of fraternization” within the organization. The change 

of command was viewed as highly positive. Neither group changed geographical 

locations during OIF. Primary mission for both groups has been medical care of 

coalition service members and US. Both groups viewed their performance as rewarding 

and successful. The group stated a positive aspect of the deployment was “good 

training.” Negative aspects of the deployment were listed as: “false hope and promises 

on return dates,” separation from family, lack of privacy, and “difficulty in making 

decisions to make things happen.” The group reported morale as low. One group 

reported morale as high within work units/sections, but low as an organization because 

of company level policies/actions. Both groups reported physical health as good while 

one group reported mental health as poor. Access to care was good but the group 

reporting poor mental health voiced concern over seeking mental health services. This 

group was reluctant to seek care from members of their own organization. The AC 

group felt NCO/Officer leaders were “professional” and did “admirable” jobs. The RC 

group felt discounted and unsupported as NCOs and that some officers encouraged 

Soldiers to jump the chain of command and come directly to the officer. Battalion 

command issues were not addressed in either group. Both groups, AC/RC had negative 

comments on their FRGs. The groups reported that family members were not being 

contacted and kept informed. Quality of life was not an issue for either group. Soldiers 

felt they had comfortable living arrangements, adequate time to relax and adequate time 

for organized R & R functions. Communication with family members was also an issue. 

The group stated TRICARE was an issue for their family. Soldiers whose dependents 

relocated geographically had difficulty using TRICARE because they were registered in 

a different TRICARE region.

A-34
APPENDIX 4 (References) to ANNEX A to OIF MHAT REPORT 

Blanchard EB, Jones-Alexander J, et. Al. Psychometric properties of the PTSD checklist 

(PCL). Behavior Research and Therapy 1996 34:669-73. 

Britt TW. The stigma of psychological problems in a work environment: evidence from 

the screening of service members returning from Bosnia. J Applied Social Psychology 

2000;30:1599-1618. 

Castro, C.A., Bienvenu, R.V., Huffman, A. H. & Adler, A. B. (2000). Soldier Dimensions 

and operational readiness in U.S. Army Forces Deployed to Kosovo, International 

Review of the Armed Forces Medical Services, 73, 191-200. 

Hoge CW, Lesikar SE, Guevara R, Lange J, Brundage JF, Engel CC Jr., Messer SC, 

Orman DT. Mental disorders among U.S. Military personnel in the 1990s: association 

with high levels of health care utilization and early military attrition. Am J Psychiatry 

2002;159:1576-1583. 

Hoge CW. The impact of deployment on the mental health and well-being of Soldiers 

and their families: preliminary analysis of surveys conducted among XVIII Airborne 

Corps Soldiers deploying to SW Asia. 6th Annual Force Health Protection Conference, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 13 August 2003. 

Kessler RC. Psychiatric epidemiology: selected recent advances and future directions. 

Bull World Health Org 2000;78:464-74. 

Prigerson HG, Maciejewski PK, Rosenheck RA. Population attributable fractions of 

psychiatric disorders and behavioral outcomes associated with combat exposures 

among US men. Am J Public Health 2002;92:59-63. 

Prigerson HG, Maciejewski PK, Rosenheck RA. Combat trauma: trauma with highest 

risk of delayed onset and unresolved posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, 

unemployment, and abuse among men. J Nerv Mental Disorders 2001;189:99-108. 

Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB. Validation and utility of self-report version of the 

PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. JAMA 1999;282:1734-44. 

Thomas JL, Castro CA. Organizational behavior and the U.S. Peacekeeper. In: TW 

Britt & AB Adler (eds.), The psychology of the peacekeeper. Praeger, Westport, CT 

(2003). 

A-35